[1] The degree of credibility of a witness's statement and the procedural requirements to enhance the credibility of a witness's statement in the criminal identification procedure, where the suspect's identity alone is replaced with a witness or only one photograph of the suspect presents it to a witness in the criminal identification procedure based on the suspect's appearance, etc.

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below that rejected the credibility of the victim's criminal identification statement in light of the victim's five photographs presented by the investigative agency as the criminal suspect

[1] Articles 199 and 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Articles 199 and 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2000Do4946 decided Feb. 9, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 688) Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7033 decided Feb. 27, 2004 (Gong2004Sang, 579)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Yellow-soo

Seoul High Court Decision 2004No1779 delivered on October 19, 2004

The appeal is dismissed.

A witness’s statement in a criminal identification procedure according to the appearance, etc. of the suspect is low unless there are additional circumstances, such as where the suspect is aware of the suspect’s identity or where there is any other circumstance to suspect the suspect as the suspect in addition to the victim’s statement, the credibility of the witness’s statement in the criminal identification procedure should be recorded in detail in advance, and the witness’s statement or description as to the suspect’s appearance should be presented to the witness in 200, including the limit of human memory, inaccurate and specific circumstances, and the possibility that the suspect or the person’s photograph may be suspected of being the suspect as the offender. In addition, in order to evaluate that the witness’s statement in the criminal identification procedure is high, the witness’s statement or description as to the suspect’s appearance, etc. should be compared with the witness’s appearance, and 200, 200, 200, 300, 40, 200, 20, 30, 30, 40, 20, 30, etc.

According to the records, the police officer conducted an investigation by informing the victims of rape on February 8, 204, which was 3 months after the victims of the crime such as this case's charges. It was hard to see that the victims' name was 25 to 28 years old, and the victim's name was stated as the victim's name was 40 years old, and the victim's name was 5 years old and was 44 years old. The victim's name was 6 years old and 1985, and the victim's name was 4 years old and 6 years old and 6 years old and was 4 years old, and the victim's name was 4 years old and 6 years old and 6 years old, and the victim's name was stated as the victim's name and 5 days old, and the victim's name was omitted.

In the same purport, the court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance on the ground that the defendant's statement of the victims who are one of the offenders and the remaining evidence is insufficient to recognize the facts charged of this case, and found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case is just in light of the records, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)